Stimulus control and delayed reinforcement

Richards, Ralph W.; Marcattilio, A. J. M.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(78)90026-7

Cited by 8 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The gradients from B-4, -5, and -6 are shaped like an inverted V and peak at or near the 0°line (associated with the VI schedule during training). Jenkins (1965), Rilling (1977), and Terrace (1972); for a recent discussion of this matter, also see Richards & Marcattilio (1978)], it may be concluded that the vertical line functioned as an excitatory stimulus when compounded with one color (for all six birds), and as an inhibitory stimulus when compounded with the other color (for four birds). The present study thus shows that the Boneau and Honig (1964) finding has limited generality.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus control following training on a conditional discrimination

Richards

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination in which responding was reinforced either in the presence or in the absence of a vertical line, depending on the color of the key and the chamber's illumination. When subsequently tested for generalization along the line-orientation dimension, all subjects showed a decremental gradient when the lines were combined with the color that had signaled reinforcement in the presence of the vertical line. In addition, most subjects showed an incremental gradient when the lines were combined with the color that had signaled no reinforcement in the presence of the vertical line.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus control following training on a conditional discrimination

Richards

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early studies by Grice (1948), Perin (1943), and Spence (1947) demonstrated how delayed reinforcement affects the acquisition of new behavior. More recent investigations have examined the effects of delayed reinforcement on maintained response rates (Dews, 1960;Ferster, 1953;Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972;Richards, 1972Richards, , 1981Sizemore & Lattal, 1977Williams, 1976), and on postdiscrimination gradients of stimulus control (Richards, 1973;Richards & Hittesdorf, 1976Richards & Marcattilio, 1978). Still other inquiries have been concerned with defining a quantitative relationship between responding and the length of the delay interval in choice situations (Chung, 1965;Chung & Herrnstein, 1967;Fantino, 1969).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference for Signaled Versus Unsignaled Reinforcement Delay in Concurrent‐chain Schedules

Marcattilio

Richards

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A concurrent-chain schedule was employed to examine pigeons' preferences for signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement in which the delay durations ranged from zero to ten seconds. In general, pigeons preferred signaled delay over unsignaled delay especially when a variable-interval 30-second schedule operated in each initial link; when a variableinterval 90-second schedule operated in each initial link, these preferences tended toward indifference or were attenuated. In addition, prior training seemed to exert partial control over behavior. Responding in the terminal link was higher under signaled delay than unsignaled delay in a majority of the cases. Moreover, response rates under signaled delay remained fairly constant whereas responding under unsignaled delay was initially high, but decreased systematically with delay durations as short as 2.5 seconds. These results are consistent with a number of other studies demonstrating the significant role of a signal for impending positive stimuli.Key words: signaled reinforcement delay, unsignaled reinforcement delay, choice behavior, concurrent-chain schedules, key peck, pigeons Over the years, much attention has been allocated to the effects of delayed reinforcement on various aspects of behavior. Early studies by Grice (1948), Perin (1943), and Spence (1947) demonstrated how delayed reinforcement affects the acquisition of new behavior. More recent investigations have examined the effects of delayed reinforcement on maintained response rates (Dews, 1960;Ferster, 1953;Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972;Richards, 1972Richards, , 1981Sizemore & Lattal, 1977 Williams, 1976), and on postdiscrimination gradients of stimulus control (Richards, 1973;Richards & Hittesdorf, 1976Richards & Marcattilio, 1978). Still other inquiries have been concerned with defining a quantitative relationship between responding and the length of the delay interval in choice situations (Chung, 1965;Chung & Herrnstein, 1967;Fantino, 1969 (1970) found that rats learned to escape shock much faster when the negative reinforcement delay interval was signaled compared to when it was unsignaled. Results from two separate studies suggest that responding under conditions of signaled delay decreases as the delay interval increases (Pierce et al., 1972) and that similar results are found under conditions of unsignaled delay except that the latter procedure maintains lower response rates especially at shorter delay durations (as short as 3-sec; Williams, 1976). Recently, Richards (1981) confirmed these general findings in a within-subjects design. In addition, these studies also indicate that responding maintained by unsignaled delay procedures is more variable than responding maintained by signaled delay.Despite the wealth of information this research has contributed, no research to date has examined pigeons' preferences for signaled versus unsignaled reinforcement delay. Such was the purpose of the present investigation. 221 1981, 36,[221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229] NUMBER 2 (sE...

show abstract

“…These results were not supported by Richards and Marcattilio (1978). Their experiment was principally designed to assess the effects of stimulus control and behavioral contrast, but in the study, groups of pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which one component was paired with immediate reinforcement, and the other component was paired with either fixed or variable delays to reinforcement.…”

Section: -S Ft 3-s Schedule) This Was Done Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Variable delays have been studied before by either imposing two different delay values in random order, labeled mixed delays (Chelonis et al, 1994;Cicerone, 1976;Logan, 1960;Mazur, 1984;Pubols, 1962), or three or more delay values arranged in random order, labeled variable delays (Bryan, 1978;Chelonis et al, 1994;Mazur, 1984). As noted above, these have been examined before, but mostly in the context of concurrent schedules (e.g., Chelonis et al, 1994;Cicerone, 1976;Mazur, 1984) or in a between-groups design (Richards & Marcattilio, 1978).…”

Section: Statement Of Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All previous studies used only signaled delays, and for those that used pigeons as subjects (Chelonis et al, 1994;Cicerone, 1976;Mazur, 1984;Richards & Marcattilio, 1978), the signal consisted of darkening the keylights and turning on different houselights associated with either fixed or variable delays. The degree to which using different signals for different delays just as Cicerone (1976), Mazur (1984), and Chelonis et al (1994) did may have facilitated differentiation compared to using the same signal (blackout) in all delay conditions is another question.…”

Section: Response Rates and Delay-related Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Fixed and Mixed Delays on Responding under Variable-Interval Schedules

Cook¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of Fixed and Mixed Delays on Responding under Variable-Interval Schedules James E. CookDelays to reinforcement are ubiquitous in the natural environment, where those delays often vary. Still, most research examining delayed reinforcement has focused only on fixed delays. Little research has examined the effects of variable delays. Nonresetting fixed and mixed delays to reinforcement were imposed on the responding of 4 pigeons previously maintained on a multiple variable-interval (VI) VI schedule of immediate reinforcement. Mixed delays consisted of two alternating delay values, the mean of which equaled the value of the fixed delay. A progressive delay procedure was used, in which delay durations increased across successive sessions. Conditions included using unsignaled (Mixed-Change) and signaled delays (Mixed-Signaled) in which both mixed delay values changed across sessions. A third condition (Mixed-Constant) involved using unsignaled delays in which one of the mixed delay values remained constant while the other progressively increased across sessions. Mixed delay components maintained higher rates of responding in some conditions. Response rates decreased more and changes in interresponse times were greater with unsignaled than signaled delays. With unsignaled delays, changes in responding were a function of the average obtained delay within each component of the multiple schedule, regardless of whether the delays were fixed or mixed. Obtained delays tended to be shorter in the mixed delay component, resulting in higher rates of responding.iii

show abstract

Stimulus control and delayed reinforcement

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Stimulus control following training on a conditional discrimination

Stimulus control following training on a conditional discrimination

Preference for Signaled Versus Unsignaled Reinforcement Delay in Concurrent‐chain Schedules

Effects of Fixed and Mixed Delays on Responding under Variable-Interval Schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About